Letterboxd is a social site for sharing your life in film.

The Amazing Spider-Man

Synopsis

The untold story begins.

Peter Parker is an outcast high schooler was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents' disappearance—leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors' alter ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero.

I got a lot of grief when this opened from Spider-Man fans for giving it a 2.5 star review.

I was WAY too generous.

Garfield and Stone do have legitimate chemistry. They're terrific together. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN does not make me excited for the sequel, but it does make me wish these two would star in an old school Tracy and Hepburn-style romantic comedy. That would be very interesting.

Y'know what's NOT interesting? This movie. It's ugly, sloppy, dumb, and slow, and a huge step down from all three of the Raimi movies (yes, even the third one). It's just one bad choice after another. There's a slo-mo skateboarding montage. There's characters who show up, do nothing, and vanish. (Irrfan Khan,…

I don't care what anyone says, this is my Spidey and I love it, warts and all.

Before I continue I feel the need to emphasise that I in no way factor in the debate about the necessity of a reboot this soon, nor will I compare them to Raimi's three films as I consider these factors irrelevant to my opinion of this film. Films should be judged in their own right, if they're good, they're good, if not, too bad.

This film has some problems that lie mainly within the script and the pacing. It tells the origin of Spider-Man well enough, but it skirts over some of the 'getting to know you power' bits too quickly. The focus…

I am in shock at how good this film was and at the decisions that were made in doing the reboot. Those decisions are what makes the film so good. I have to say that I think this film is better then the first Spider-Man. Was a reboot necessary? No, but who cares. I don't watch films because they are necessary, I watch them to be entertained.

The decisions made that surprised me is that the film probably has less action, less villains and less characters in general then Spider-Man 3. So obviously if all you want is more action and villains you're not going to like this much.

This is the first time I've rewatched Amazing Spider-Man since seeing Life of Pi. I forgot that Irrfan Khan was in Amazing Spider-Man. I forgot that Peter Parker's father was named Richard. Every time Khan said "Richard Parker" I was looking for the tiger.

Two or three minutes into the "The Amazing Spider-Man," I shifted in my seat, worried that the film was about to make no connection with me whatsoever. My shifting was for not as "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an excellent superhero film. Providing a personal, emotionally resonant, and somewhat low-key origin to the beloved-by-many character, the film is solidly-crafted, ideally-cast, exhilarating, and moving. Though it slips into well-worn, super hero operatics in its final act, this film, with its heart of a quieter film and its soul of a monster movie, is an undeniable pleasure.

This was my second run-in with The Amazing Spider-Man, and I really wanted to like it. I think Spider-Man is one of the better superhero characters and it's a real shame that he has decreased in popularity over the years. If you'd have told me ten years ago that most kids, and a bunch of the adult population, would recognise Iron Man over Spider-Man as a household superhero, I would have laughed right in your god damned face. But I'm not laughing now, because this film is a right turd.

I just couldn't get into it for a whole heap of reasons. I like Andrew Garfield, and I think he's an alright Spider-Man, but a lousy Peter Parker. I don't…

Though I had reservations about rebooting a franchise a little over a decade old, I thoroughly enjoyed this fresh take on Spider-Man. This version follows the Ultimate series of comics more closely than Raimi's films, giving an edgier feel. More layers have been added to the origin story. I particularly liked that Gwen Stacy was given her rightful place as Peter Parker's true love. This sets up a potentially great and dramatic sequel...because all us comic geeks know what has to happen.

Considering the level of hype surrounding Spider-Man's admittance into Phase 3 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I felt it was appropriate to re-watch the two Spider-Man films which I can envisage fading into obscurity between Sam Raimi's trilogy, and what will no doubt be an interesting addition to the franchise.

I think I'm in the minority in saying that I prefer Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker over Tobey Maguire, due to the fact that he just feels closer to the character I imagine from the comics. As would be expected from a big Sony blockbuster, the visuals are impressive and the action is fast-paced and well shot.

What I personally feel lets the film down is that the ratio between action and emotional family/romantic sub-plots is way off from what I expect from a superhero film, as well as recapping and wasting time with an already well-known and established origin story.

Rebooted within only years of the recent reboot, this can be seen as a hasty attempt to milk the character.

However, the reboot is actually well timed, with Spiderman 3 of the previous iteration having run out of ideas. Starting again, with new actors allowing the retelling of the same story. The viewers can draw the comparisons.

Andrew Garfield is an excellent Peter Parker, even though he is considerably older than the character should be. Emma Stone's Gwen is also edgy and believable.